three

* * *

Nowlet us look at what Mr. Kutler actually did say about his party’s land
bill.

Inspeaking of land, Mr. Kutler first raised objections to the Trudoviks on the
question of the “subsistence standard” and on the question of
whether land suffices. Mr. Kutler took the “1861 standard” which, he
said, is lower than the subsistence standard and informed the Chamber that
“according to his approximate calculation” (the Duma had
not heard a word about this calculation and knows absolutely nothing about it!)
even for the 1861 standard another 30 million dessiatines would be required.

Iwould remind you, gentlemen, that Deputy Kutler spoke after
Karavayev, representative of the Trudovik Group, and raised the objection
specifically to him. But Deputy Karavayev stated in the Duma, directly and
explicitly, and then made it known to the public in a special letter to
the newspaper Tovarishch (March 21), that up to 70 million
dessiatines would be required to raise peasant holdings to the subsistence
standard. He also said that the total of the state, crown, church and
privately-owned lands comes to that figure.

DeputyKaravayev did not indicate the source from which he made his calculation
and did not acquaint the Duma with the method employed to arrive at this
figure. My calculation, based on a source that I can name exactly and which is,
furthermore, the very latest official publication of the Central Statistical
Committee, gives a figure that is higher than 70 million
dessiatines. Of the privately-owned lands alone, 72 million
dessiatines are available to the peasants, while the crown, state, church and
other lands provide more than 10 million and up to 20 million dessiatines.

Inany case, the fact remains—in raising objections to Deputy Karavayev,
Deputy Kutler tried to prove that there is not sufficient land to help
the peasants, but could notprove it since he gave unsubstantiated, and, as I have shown,
untrue figures.

Ingeneral I must warn you, gentlemen, against abuse of the concepts
“labour
standard”[3] and “subsistence standard”. Our Social-Democratic Labour
Party takes the much more correct line of avoiding all these
“standards”. “Standards” introduce something of officialdom, of red
tape, into a vital and militant political question. These “standards”
confuse people and hide the real nature of the issue. To transfer
the dispute to these “standards” or even to discuss them at the
present moment is truly a case of dividing up the skin before the bear
is killed and, furthermore, dividing that skin up verbally in a gathering
of people who will probably not divide up the skin at all
when we kill the bear.

Don’tyou worry, gentlemen! The peasants will divide up the land
themselves once it falls into their hands. The peasants can easily divide it;
the thing is to get hold of it. They will not ask anybody how to divide it, nor
will they allow anybody to interfere with their division of the land.

Allthese speeches about how to divide the land are sheer empty talk. We are
a political body, not a surveyor’s office or a boundary
commission. We have to help the people solve an economic and political
problem; we have to help the peasantry in their struggle against the
landlords, against a class that lives by feudal exploitation. And this vital,
urgent problem is befogged by chatter about “standards”.

Whybefogged? Because, instead of the real question of whether or not
72 million dessiatines should be taken from the landowners for the peasantry,
the extraneous question of “farming standards” is being
discussed, a question that in the final analysis is by no means important. This
facilitates evasion of the issue and makes it easy to avoid a real
answer. Disputes on subsistence, on labour, or any other standards you like,
only serve to confuse the basic issue:
should we take 72 million dessiatines of the landlords’ land for the peasants,
or not?

Attemptsare being made to show whether there is sufficient or insufficient
land for one standard or another.

Whatis this demonstrating for, gentlemen? Why these empty speeches, why this
muddy water in which it is easy for some people to fish? Is it not clear enough
that there is
no use arguing about that which does not exist, and that the peasants do not
want any sort of imaginary land, but the land of the neighbouring
landlord that they. are already familiar with? It is not about
“standards” that we have to talk, but about landlords’
land, not about any of your standards and whether any of them is sufficient,
but about how much landlords’ land there is. Everything else is
nothing but evasion, excuses and even attempts to throw dust in the
peasants’ eyes.

DeputyKutler, for instance, avoided the real point at issue. Trudovik Karavayev
at least went straight to the point: 70 million dessiatines. And how
did Deputy Kutler answer that? He did not answer that
point. He confused the issue with his “standards”, i.e., he
simply avoided giving an answer to the question of whether he and his party
agree to hand over all the landlords’ land to the peasants.

DeputyKutler took advantage of Deputy Karavayev’s error in not having
raised the question clearly and sharply enough, and avoided the point at
issue. That, gentlemen, is the hub of our problem. Whoever does not
agree to hand over literally all the landlords’ land to the
peasants (remember, I made the proviso that each landowner be left with 50
dessiatines so that nobody would be ruined!) does not stand for the peasants
and does not really want to help the peasants. For if you allow the
question of all the landlords’ land to be befogged or shelved, the
whole issue is in doubt. The question then arises—who will determine
the share of the landlords’ land that is to be given to the peasants?

Whowill decide it? Out of 79 million, 9 million is a
“share” and so is 70 million. Who will decide it if we do not,
if the State Duma does not decide it clearly and with determination?

Itwas not without reason that Deputy Kutler kept quiet on this question. Deputy
Kutler toyed with the words “compulsory alienation”.

Don’tallow yourselves to be fascinated by words, gentlemen! Don’t
fall under the spell of a pretty turn of phrase! Get to the bottom of things!

WhenI hear the expression “compulsory alienation”, I always ask
myself: who is compelling whom? If millions of peasants compel a
handful of landlords to submit to the interests of the nation, that is very
good. If a handful of
landlords compel millions of peasants to subordinate their lives to the selfish
interests of that handful, that is very bad.

Thatis the insignificant question that Deputy Kutler managed to evade!
With his arguments about “impracticability” and “political
conditions” he, in actual fact, was even calling on the people
to reconcile themselves to their subordination to a handful of
landlords.

DeputyKutler spoke immediately after my comrade Tsereteli. Tsereteli, in the
declaration of our Social-Democratic group, made two definite
statements that provide a clear solution to precisely this problem, the main,
fundamental problem. The first statement—the transfer of the land to a
democratic state. “Democratic” means that which expresses
the interests of the masses of the people, not of a handful of the
privileged. We must tell the people, clearly and forthrightly, that
without a democratic state, without political liberty, without a fully
authoritative representation of the people, there cannot possibly be
any land reform to the advantage of the peasants.

Thesecond statement—the need for a preliminary discussion of
the land question in equally democratic local committees.

Howdid Deputy Kutler answer that? He did not. Silence is a poor
answer, Mr. Kutler. You kept silent precisely on the question of
whether the peasants will compel the landlords to make concessions to the
people’s interests, or whether the landlords will compel the peasants to
put a fresh noose of more ruinous compensation round their necks.

Youcannot be allowed to ignore such a question.

Inaddition to the Social-Democrat, the Popular Socialists (Deputy Baskin) and
the Socialist-Revolutionaries (Deputy Kolokolnikov) spoke in the Duma on the
subject of local committees. The local committees have been spoken of in the
press for a long time, they were also spoken of in the First Duma. That is
something we must not forget, gentlemen. We must make quite clear to ourselves
and to the people why so much has been said on this question and what its
present significance is.

TheFirst State Duma discussed the question of local laud committees at its
fifteenth session, May 26, 1906. The question was raised by members of the
Trudovik Group, who
presented a written statement signed by thirty-five members of the Duma
(including two Social-Democrats, I. Savelyev and I. Shuvalov). The
statement was first read at the fourteenth session of the Duma on May 24,
1906 (see page 589 of the Verbatim Report of Sessions of the First State
Duma); the statement was then printed and discussed two days later. I will
read you the most important parts of the statement in
full.

“...Itis necessary to set up local committees immediately; they should be elected
on the basis of universal, equal and direct suffrage, by secret ballot, for the
needful preparatory work, such as—the elaboration of subsistence and
labour standards of land tenure as applicable to local conditions, the
determination of the amount of cultivable land and the amount of it that is
rented, tilled with the farmer’s own or with other’s implements,
etc. In view of the need to adapt the land law as fully as possible to the
multiplicity of local conditions, it is advisable for the committees to take an
active part in the general discussion on the very fundamentals of the land
reform, detailed in the various bills submitted to the Duma....” The
Trudoviks therefore proposed the immediate election of a commission and
the immediate elaboration of the necessary bill.

Howwas this proposal greeted by the various parties? The Trudoviks and the
Social-Democrats gave it unanimous support in their periodicals. The
so-called “people’s freedom” party spoke categorically in its
chief organ Rech, on May 25, 1906 (i.e., the day after the
first reading of the Trudovik bill in the Duma), against the Trudovik
bill. Rech said straight out that it feared that such land
committees might “shift the solution of the agrarian problem to the
Left”.[1]

“Weshall try, insofar as it depends on us,” wrote Rech,
“to preserve the official and specifically business character of
the local land committees. And for the same reason,we believe that to choose the
committees by universal suffrage would mean to prepare them, not for the
peaceful solution of the land question on the spot, but for something very
different. The guidance of the general direction to be taken by the reform
must remain in the hands of the state; representatives of state power,
therefore, must have their places in the local committees, if not for purposes
of making decisions, at least for the purpose of exercising control over the
decisions of local bodies. Then, again within the general fundamentals of the
reform, there must be represented in the local committees, as far as
possible on an equal footing, those conflicting interests that can be
reconciled without contravening the state significance of the reform in
question, and without converting it into an act of unilateral violence that
might end in the complete failure of the whole matter.”

Thisis quite clear and definite.

The“people’s freedom” party gives an estimate of the proposed
measure in substance, and opposes it. The party does not want local
committees elected by universal, direct, equal and secret ballot, but
committees in which a handful of landlords amid thousands and
tens of thousands of peasants would have
equal
representation. Representatives of state power should participate for
reasons of “control”.

Letthe peasant deputies give good thought to this statement. Let them realise
the essence of the matter, and explain it to the peasants.

Tryto get a picture, gentlemen, of what it really means. In the local
committees landlords and peasants are represented on an equal footing,
and there is a representative of the government to exercise control, to
“reconcile” them. That means one-third of time votes for the
peasants, one-third for the landlords, and one-third for government
representatives. And the highest state dignitaries, all those who have control
over state
affairs, are themselves among the wealthiest landowners! In this way
time landlords will “exercise control over” both the peasants and
the landlords! Landowners will “reconcile”
peasants and landowners!

Ohyes, there would no doubt be “compulsory alienation”—
compulsory alienation of the peasants’ money and labour by the
landlords, in exactly the same way as the landlords’ gubernia
committees in 1861 cut off one-fifth of the peasants’ land and imposed a price
for the land that was double its real value.

Anagrarian reform of this type would mean nothing more than
selling to the peasants, at exorbitant prices, the worst
lands and those that the landlords do not need, in order to place the peasants
in still greater bondage. “Compulsory alienation”
of this sort is far worse than a voluntary agreement between
landlord and peasant, because one half of the votes would go to the peasants
and the other half to the landlords in the case of a voluntary
agreement. According to the Cadet idea of compulsory alienation the peasants
would have one-third of the votes and the landlords
two-thirds—one-third because they are landlords and another
third because they are government officials!

NikolaiGavrilovich Chernyshevsky, the great Russian writer and one of
Russia’s first socialists, who was brutally persecuted by the government
till his dying day, wrote the following about the “emancipation” of
the peasants and the land redemption payments of 1861 of accursed
memory: it would have been better for the peasants and landlords to come to a
voluntary agreement than to be “emancipated and pay redemption fees for
the land” through the gubernia landlords’
committees.[2]
In the case of a
voluntary agreement on the purchase of land it would not have been
possible to extract as much from the peasants as has been extracted by
means of the government’s “reconciliation” of
peasants and landlords.

Thegreat Russian socialist proved to be right. Today, forty-six years after the
famous “emancipation with redemption payments”, we know the results
of that redemption operation. The market price of the land that went to
the peasants was 648,000,000 rubles, and the peasants were forced to
pay 867,000,000 rubles, 219,000,000 rubles more than
the land was worth. For half a century the peasants have suffered, have
languished in hunger, and have died on those land allotments, weighted down by
such payments, oppressed by the government’s “reconciliation”
of peasants and landlords— until the peasantry has been reduced to its
present in tolerable condition.

TheRussian liberals want to repeat this sort of
“reconciliation” of peasants and landlords. Beware,
peasants! The workers’ Social-Democratic Party warns you—decades of
new torment, hunger, bondage, degradation and abuse are what you will inflict on
the people if you agree to this sort of “reconciliation”.

Thequestion of local committees and redemption payments constitutes the
keypoint of the agrarian problem. Every care must be taken to ensure that here
there should be no obscurity, that nothing should be left unsaid, and
that there is no beating about the bush, and no provisos.

Whenthis question was discussed in the First State Duma on May 26, 1906, Cadets
Kokoshkin and Kotlyarevsky, who spoke against the Trudoviks,
confined themselves to provisos and beating about the bush. They kept harping
on the fact that the Duma could not immediately decree such commit
tees, although nobody had proposed any such decrees! They said that the question
was bound up with a reform of the election law and local self-government; that
is, they simply delayed the important and simple matter of setting up local
committees to help the Duma solve the agrarian problem. They spoke of
the “distortion of the course of legislation”, of the danger of
creating “eighty or ninety local Dumas” and said that
“actually there was no need to set up such bodies as local
committees”, etc., etc.

Allthese are nothing but excuses, gentlemen, one long evasion of a question
that the Duma must decide clearly and definitely: will a democratic
government have to solve the agrarian problem, or should the present government?
Should the peasants, i.e., the majority of the population, predominate in the
local land committees, or should the landlords? Should a handful of landlords
submit to the mil lions of the people, or should millions of working people
submit to a handful of landlords?

Anddon’t try to tell me that the Duma is impotent, helpless and without
the necessary powers. I know all that very well. I would willingly agree to
repeat that and under score it in any Duma resolution, statement or
declaration. The rights of the Duma, however, do not enter into the present
question, for none of us has even thought of making the slightest suggestion
that would contravene the law on the rights of the Duma. The matter in hand is
this—the Duma must clearly, definitely and, most important of all,
correctly express the real interests of the people, must tell them the truth
about the solution of the agrarian problem, and must open the eyes of the
peasantry so that they recognise the snags lying in the way of a solution
to the land problem.

Thewill of the Duma, of course, is still not law, that I am well aware of! But
let anybody who likes do the job of limiting the Duma’s will or gagging
it—except the Duma itself! And the Duma’s decision, of
course, will meet with every known type of counteraction, but that will never
he a justification for those who beforehand begin to twist and turn, how and
scrape, adapt themselves to the will of others, and make the decision of the
people’s representatives fit in with the wishes of just anybody.

Inthe final analysis, it is not the Duma, of course, that will decide
the agrarian question, and the decisive act in the peasants’ struggle for land
will not be fought out in the Duma. If we really wish to be representatives
of the people, and not liberal civil servants; if we really want to serve
the interests of the people and the interests of liberty, we can and
must help the people by explaining the question, by formulating
it clearly, by telling them the whole truth
with no equivocation and no beating about the bush.

Tobe of real help to the people, the Duma decision must give the clearest
possible answer to the three basic aspects of the land problem that I
set forth in my speech, and which Deputy Kutler evaded and confused.

Questionnumber one—that of the 79,000,000 dessiatines of landlords’ land
and of the need to transfer no less than 70,000,000 of them to the peasants.

Questionnumber two—compensation. The land reform will be of some
real advantage to the peasants only if they obtain it without paying
compensation. Compensation would be a fresh noose around the neck
of the peasant and would be an unbearably heavy burden on the whole of
Russia’s future development.

Questionnumber three—that of the democratic state system that is
necessary to implement the agrarian reform, including, in particular, local
land committees, elected by universal, direct, equal and secret
ballot. Without it the land reform will mean compelling the peasant masses
to enter
into bondage to the landlords, and not compelling a handful of landlords to meet
the urgent demands of the whole people.

Isaid at the beginning of my speech that Mr. Vasilchikov, the Minister of
Agriculture, was reconciling the “Rights” and the
“Cadets”. Now that I have made clear the significance of the
question of 70,000,000 dessiatines of landlords’ land, of compensation and,
most important of all, of the composition of the local land committees,
it will be sufficient for me to quote one passage from the
minister’s speech:

“Takingthis stand,” said the minister, referring to the
“inviolability of the boundaries” of landed property and the
“shifting” of them only “in the interests of the state”—
“taking this stand, and admitting the possibility of the
compulsory shifting of boundaries in certain cases, we believe that we
are not shaking ... the basic principles of private property....

Haveyou given proper consideration to these significant words of the
minister’s, gentlemen? They are worth pondering over.... You must ponder
over them.... Mr. Kutler fully convinced the minister that there is nothing
inconvenient for the landlords in the word “compulsory
Why not? Because it is the landlords themselves who will do the
compelling!

Notes

[1]
See newspaper
Vperyod,[4] No. I for May 26, 1906; leading article—“The
Cadets Are Betraying the Peasants”, signed: G. Al—sky.—Lenin

[2]
It would be a good thing to find the exact quotation; I think it is
from “Letters Unaddressed”, and
elsewhere.[5]—Lenin

[3]
The labour standard was the measure of the amount
of land each peasant household should receive under an equalitarian system of
land distribution. This utopian ideal had a long history in Russia and was
strongly supported by the various Narodnik groups and parties that emerged in
the latter half of the nineteenth century after the emancipation of the
serfs. The “labour standard” implied the allotment to each peasant
household of the maximum amount of land its members could farm
without
employing hired labour. It was proposed in opposition to the “standard of
1801”, i.e., the amount of land actually allotted to the peasants at the time of
the Reform which in many cases was far from sufficient even to feed the peasant
and his family so that he had to seek “outside employments” (for
details of this feature of Russian peasant life see Volume Three of this
edition, “The Development of Capitalism in Russia”). The third standard
mentioned in this article is the “subsistence standard”, i.e., the
minimum amount of land that would feed the peasant and his family. Needless to
say this standard was far below the “labour standard”.

[4]Vperyod (Forward)—a legal Bolshevik daily newspaper published
in St. Petersburg from May 26 (Jane 8), 1906, in place of Volna, which
had been suppressed by the government, and in continuation of Volna.
Lenin played a leading role in the publication of the paper; other active
collaborators were M. S. Olminsky, V. V. Vorovsky, and A. V. Lunacharsky. The
newspaper carried fifteen articles by Lenin.

Vperyodwas subjected to constant persecution; ten of the seventeen
issues were sequestered. The Bolsheviks countered police persecution by making
preparations to issue their legal newspaper under another name in the event of
its being closed down. On June 2 (15) a notice was printed in Vperyod to
the effect that the daily workers’ newspaper Ekho would shortly begin
publication in St. Petersburg. This notice was printed in each issue until the
paper was banned. The publication of Vperyod ceased on June 14 (27),
1906, by order of the St. Petersburg City Court, and Ekho began to
appear
in its stead.

[5]
Lenin is referring to a passage in N. G. Chernyshevsky’s novel
Prologue, where the hero, Volgin, replies to the statement that there
is a tremendous difference between the Progressists and the landowners’
party. “No,”
lie
says, “not tremendous, but insignificant. It would
he
tremendous if the peasants obtained the land without redemption
payments. There is a difference between taking a thing from a man and leaving it
with him but if you take payment from him it is all the same. The only
difference between the plan of the landlords’ party and that of the Progressists
is that the former is simpler and shorter. That is why it is even better. Less
red tape and, in all probability, less of a burden on the peasants. Those
peasants who have money will buy land. As to those who have none—there’s
no use compelling them to buy it. It will only ruin them. Redemption is nothing
but purchase”. Lenin quotes this passage in his “What the ’Friends
of the People’ Are and How They Fight the Social-Democrats” (see present
edition, Vol. 1,
p. 281).